On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 07:55:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

It is hard actually. That's why house prices skyrocketed under Labour too.

Auckland is becoming a major city and has the same sort if issues as other cities such as Sydney and Melbourne which are even less affordable despite having a CGT.

The solution is to increase supply. Changes to the RMA would have helped but Labour and the Greens blocked that. They care more about politicking than about
improving housing affordability.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 07:55:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

It is hard actually. That's why house prices skyrocketed under Labour too.

So you agree with National that their previous promises to fix the
problems will not be met, and that they cannot do anything about the
housing problems?

Auckland is becoming a major city and has the same sort if issues as other cities such as Sydney and Melbourne which are even less affordable despite having a CGT.

Do ytou have a cite for that?

The solution is to increase supply. Changes to the RMA would have helped but Labour and the Greens blocked that. They care more about politicking than about

improving housing affordability.
So how extra houses has the government now got to cope with the higher
demand for social housing?

Can you give a cite for Labour and the Greens stopping any legislation
the National-led government wanted to pass? Which bill are you
talking about?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 18:26:25 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 07:55:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

It is hard actually. That's why house prices skyrocketed under Labour too.

So you agree with National that their previous promises to fix the
problems will not be met,

In order to answer that question you'll have to make it less vague. What "promise", specifically, are you referring to. Quote this "promise" and I'll answer/

and that they cannot do anything about the
housing problems?

Auckland is becoming a major city and has the same sort if issues as other

cities such as Sydney and Melbourne which are even less affordable despite having a CGT.

Do ytou have a cite for that?

The solution is to increase supply. Changes to the RMA would have helped but

Labour and the Greens blocked that. They care more about politicking than about
improving housing affordability.

So how extra houses has the government now got to cope with the higher
demand for social housing?

Can you give a cite for Labour and the Greens stopping any legislation
the National-led government wanted to pass? Which bill are you
talking about?

You want me to cite common knowledge? Oh OK then.

Labour (and Greens) oppose this: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL67856_1/resource-legislation-amendment-bill

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rma-reform-process-turmoil-b-196293

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On 22/12/2016 10:09 a.m., JohnO wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 18:26:25 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 07:55:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

It is hard actually. That's why house prices skyrocketed under Labour too. >>

So you agree with National that their previous promises to fix the
problems will not be met,

In order to answer that question you'll have to make it less vague. What

"promise", specifically, are you referring to. Quote this "promise" and I'll answer/

and that they cannot do anything about the
housing problems?

Auckland is becoming a major city and has the same sort if issues as other cities such as Sydney and Melbourne which are even less affordable despite having a CGT.

Do ytou have a cite for that?

The solution is to increase supply. Changes to the RMA would have helped but Labour and the Greens blocked that. They care more about politicking than about improving housing affordability.

So how extra houses has the government now got to cope with the higher
demand for social housing?

Can you give a cite for Labour and the Greens stopping any legislation
the National-led government wanted to pass? Which bill are you
talking about?

You want me to cite common knowledge? Oh OK then.

Labour (and Greens) oppose this: https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL67856_1/resource-legislation-amendment-bill

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rma-reform-process-turmoil-b-196293

Remember JohnO. Rich is firmly of the belief that angry Andy's promise
to build 100,000 houses in ten years it going to provide more housing
than the current system has. Along with that Rich believes the market
should be controlled in Labours typical draconic style so the
investments of many Kiwi's go down the gurgler and he can settle down to turning New Zealand into another marxist basket-case.

Pooh

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 13:09:12 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 18:26:25 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 11:09:49 -0800 (PST), JohnO <johno1234@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, 21 December 2016 07:55:13 UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

It is hard actually. That's why house prices skyrocketed under Labour too. >>

So you agree with National that their previous promises to fix the
problems will not be met,

In order to answer that question you'll have to make it less vague. What "promise", specifically, are you referring to. Quote this "promise" and I'll answer/

and that they cannot do anything about the
housing problems?

Auckland is becoming a major city and has the same sort if issues as other cities such as Sydney and Melbourne which are even less affordable despite having a CGT.

Do ytou have a cite for that?

The solution is to increase supply. Changes to the RMA would have helped but Labour and the Greens blocked that. They care more about politicking than about improving housing affordability.

So how extra houses has the government now got to cope with the higher
demand for social housing?

Can you give a cite for Labour and the Greens stopping any legislation
the National-led government wanted to pass? Which bill are you
talking about?

You want me to cite common knowledge? Oh OK then.

Labour (and Greens) oppose this: >https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/bills-and-laws/bills-proposed-laws/document/00DBHOH_BILL67856_1/resource-legislation-amendment-bill

Read it again, JohnO - it is still in Select Committee! It hasn;t even
got to a third reading, so Labur and the Greens cannot have blocked
it!

https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/rma-reform-process-turmoil-b-196293

And from that article:
"Dr Smith said negotiations with the Maori Party, which are vital to
passing the bill, were "in good shape" and that the discussions
related to the complex and inter-related nature of the bill so that
changes in one area could affect another.

The National Party's other support parties, Act and United Future, are
opposed to numerous provisions, as are Labour, the Greens, and New
Zealand First."

So the problem is that National just doesn't have the numbers to pass
their legislation - Maori, ACT and United Future, Labour, the Greens
and New Zealand First all want changes before it goes through.

So no blocking - the reality is that National have blocked it
themselves by not seeking consensus with their own support parties.
They just don't get what it requires to lead a minority government, do
they . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:55:11 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

Rich which part of this article gives rise to your conclusion?

Are you suggesting that there is an avenue under current law that the
National government is failing to act on?

If not, what sort of regulation are you proposing?


--
Crash McBash

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)

On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 21:36:49 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 07:55:11 +1300, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11770561

Rich which part of this article gives rise to your conclusion?

Perhaps you didn;t read all of it - there is quite a bit of material
that indicates that National has been making statements that they are
working to resolve the housing crisis, Bill English has now
effectively said tht it is market forces which are out of the control
of the government - and the article concludes:
"The Prime Minister, in his role in charge of Housing New Zealand, and
Smith have spectacularly failed to solve Auckland's housing crisis
over several years. Now, it seems, the "market" is to blame.

Is it any surprise they're not standing a candidate in the upcoming Mt
Albert byelection?"

Are you suggesting that there is an avenue under current law that the >National government is failing to act on?

Of course there is, but it was not indicated in the article.

If not, what sort of regulation are you proposing?

What regulations are needed to buy and build houses instead of selling
them?
What regulations are needed to fix empty state houses and not leave
them empty for over a year?


Try reading a few more articles to see why more houses are needed, and
what people think about possible solutions: http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/85317/bill-englishs-cute-tactic-removing-one-countrys-perceived-biggest-problems-list
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11770841&ref=NZH_fb
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/87863628/Hundreds-sleep-outside-Auckland-City-Mission-night-after-night-over-the-Christmas-period?cid=facebook.post.87863628
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11770997 http://www.labour.org.nz/housing https://www.greens.org.nz/policy/fairer-society/homes-not-cars http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/86812075/thousands-of-social-houses-in-christchurch-to-be-transferred-to-community-providers

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)